Hmmmm, wondering if Senate GOPers have finally seen the writing on the wall with regards to their intransigence and, with the 2014 mid-terms looming, they really don't want to look like they're the problem in Washington.

Rwa2play:Hmmmm, wondering if Senate GOPers have finally seen the writing on the wall with regards to their intransigence and, with the 2014 mid-terms looming, they really don't want to look like they're the problem in Washington.

Meanwhile, McConnell's selling himself (per TFA, there's a YouTube video of this) as a "Washington insider", so he'd necessarily be "the problem" (or part of it) in Washington.

// oh, wait// he's a Republican// that's like playing the game on easy in flyover country

Is there any good reporting out there about the dynamics behind the Senate GOP leadership? We get tons of stories about Boehner and Cantor and the challenges there, but I don't recall seeing much of anything about McConnell. Why is he leader? Seems like he's been a massive failure, not only failing to prevent important legislation from happening, but also his strategy has not led to the GOP getting a majority in the Senate. Why is there nothing about a rebellion among the Senate GOPers?

Rwa2play:Hmmmm, wondering if Senate GOPers have finally seen the writing on the wall with regards to their intransigence and, with the 2014 mid-terms looming, they really don't want to look like they're the problem in Washington.

They are going to do fine in 2014. Remember, 2008 was a great year for Democrats, so 2014 means Dems have more to defend. The GOP is going to do fine in the midterms.

DamnYankees:Rwa2play: Hmmmm, wondering if Senate GOPers have finally seen the writing on the wall with regards to their intransigence and, with the 2014 mid-terms looming, they really don't want to look like they're the problem in Washington.

They are going to do fine in 2014. Remember, 2008 was a great year for Democrats, so 2014 means Dems have more to defend. The GOP is going to do fine in the midterms.

At the current rate of "derp" that's being spewed by Republicans, it'll be more of an instance of Democrats "taking" rather Republicans "defending" next year.

Rwa2play:DamnYankees: Rwa2play: Hmmmm, wondering if Senate GOPers have finally seen the writing on the wall with regards to their intransigence and, with the 2014 mid-terms looming, they really don't want to look like they're the problem in Washington.

They are going to do fine in 2014. Remember, 2008 was a great year for Democrats, so 2014 means Dems have more to defend. The GOP is going to do fine in the midterms.

At the current rate of "derp" that's being spewed by Republicans, it'll be more of an instance of Democrats "taking" rather Republicans "defending" next year.

Now, Democrats should make a deal with House GOP moderates to oust Boehner and install a moderate Republican as speaker. Gridlock would be over--the only reason why the Tea party wing has any power at all in the House is because Boehner is too scared to bring up bills that would pass on a bipartisan basis if the Tea Party tells him not to.

Hollie Maea:Now, Democrats should make a deal with House GOP moderates to oust Boehner and install a moderate Republican as speaker. Gridlock would be over--the only reason why the Tea party wing has any power at all in the House is because Boehner is too scared to bring up bills that would pass on a bipartisan basis if the Tea Party tells him not to.

Boehner IS a GOP House Moderate, relatively speaking. I'd say that Boehner is easily in the quarter of the most moderate GOP House members.

It's amazing how people realize this whole mess is a result of the President trying to bypass the Senate by making his appointments when they've all gone home for the night and claiming it as a recess appointment due to the senate not being in session simply due to not being physically present in the building.

Does anyone think that's a precedent that should be allowed to stand? All the courts that have heard it so far haven't.

This whole thing came to a head because the POTUS and Senate majority leadership didn't want to stand for their inevitable and deserved biatchslap from the Supreme Court.

JesseL:It's amazing how few people realize this whole mess is a result of the President trying to bypass the Senate by making his appointments when they've all gone home for the night and claiming it as a recess appointment due to the senate not being in session simply due to not being physically present in the building.

Does anyone think that's a precedent that should be allowed to stand? All the courts that have heard it so far haven't.

This whole thing came to a head because the POTUS and Senate majority leadership didn't want to stand for their inevitable and deserved biatchslap from the Supreme Court.

DamnYankees:Boehner IS a GOP House Moderate, relatively speaking. I'd say that Boehner is easily in the quarter of the most moderate GOP House members.

He cares too much about his job, so the fringe right has him by the nuts. If Democrats agreed to cooperate on a coup, they would only need I think 18 Republicans to revolt. It would still be a Republican speaker, but not one who was willing to do bullshiat like the "Hastert Rule".

JesseL:It's amazing how people realize this whole mess is a result of the President trying to bypass the Senate by making his appointments when they've all gone home for the night and claiming it as a recess appointment due to the senate not being in session simply due to not being physically present in the building.

Does anyone think that's a precedent that should be allowed to stand? All the courts that have heard it so far haven't.

This whole thing came to a head because the POTUS and Senate majority leadership didn't want to stand for their inevitable and deserved biatchslap from the Supreme Court.

It's hilarious that you think the recess appointments are the cause of the obstruction. Causality - it only works one way, friend.

Hollie Maea:DamnYankees: Boehner IS a GOP House Moderate, relatively speaking. I'd say that Boehner is easily in the quarter of the most moderate GOP House members.

He cares too much about his job, so the fringe right has him by the nuts. If Democrats agreed to cooperate on a coup, they would only need I think 18 Republicans to revolt. It would still be a Republican speaker, but not one who was willing to do bullshiat like the "Hastert Rule".

DamnYankees:JesseL: It's amazing how people realize this whole mess is a result of the President trying to bypass the Senate by making his appointments when they've all gone home for the night and claiming it as a recess appointment due to the senate not being in session simply due to not being physically present in the building.

Does anyone think that's a precedent that should be allowed to stand? All the courts that have heard it so far haven't.

This whole thing came to a head because the POTUS and Senate majority leadership didn't want to stand for their inevitable and deserved biatchslap from the Supreme Court.

It's hilarious that you think the recess appointments are the cause of the obstruction. Causality - it only works one way, friend.

If the recess appointments get approved it makes the Supreme Court case moot. There should be some consequences for that kind of unconstitutional BS, which is the reason for the recent fillibuster.

JesseL:There should be some consequences for that kind of unconstitutional BS, which is the reason for the recent fillibuster.

Then how to explain that those two nominees were filibustereded BEFORE the recess appointments even happened? That the only reason they were appointed "in recess" in the first place was because they couldn't get an up-or-down vote prior?

Also, for the Cordray nomination, the GOP was apparently against it (because he's the libbiest lib in the world) from December 2011 when cloture missed by 7 votes (and the GOP voted 45-2 to continue debate) until yesterday when 66 Senators supported it. With fewer Democrats in the chamber this time around.

I'm sure you are right, but it could. I'm thinking about those legendary house members that everyone assures us would vote for the Senate immigration bill if it were brought up for a vote. They like to piss and moan anonymously about how the fringe is ruining their parties chances, but they do have the power to do something about it if they were brave enough to give Boehner the finger and throw his ass out of the Big Chair. The big lesson I learned from this filibuster fight is that there is a small number of Republicans that are freaked out about their toilet bowl approval numbers and are willing to give things up to the Democrats with nothing in return. At least there is in the Senate. I don't see why the house would be different--just because the crazies have Boehner by the nuts doesn't mean that there are not John McCain types in somewhere within their 234 member caucus. But yeah, you are right...not going to happen.

Dr Dreidel:JesseL: There should be some consequences for that kind of unconstitutional BS, which is the reason for the recent fillibuster.

Then how to explain that those two nominees were filibustereded BEFORE the recess appointments even happened? That the only reason they were appointed "in recess" in the first place was because they couldn't get an up-or-down vote prior?

Also, for the Cordray nomination, the GOP was apparently against it (because he's the libbiest lib in the world) from December 2011 when cloture missed by 7 votes (and the GOP voted 45-2 to continue debate) until yesterday when 66 Senators supported it. With fewer Democrats in the chamber this time around.

I'm no GOP apologist and I don't explain or excuse that.

What the president and the senate majority have done and threatened to do is a far bigger issue though.

If the game isn't going your way you don't get to just ignore the rules.

JesseL:It's amazing how people realize this whole mess is a result of the President trying to bypass the Senate by making his appointments when they've all gone home for the night and claiming it as a recess appointment due to the senate not being in session simply due to not being physically present in the building.

The President has already made his appointments. The Senate has a constitutional duty to "advice and consent". If the Senate wants to withhold their consent for a nominee then they need to do that. Go ahead and hold a vote. Failure to grant or deny the President consent for his nominees is an unconstitutional bypassing of the President's duty to make appointments. The Senate has a constitutionally-mandated duty "advice and consent".

Note that "sit around with thumbs planted up asses" is not one of the options afforded the Senate by Article II, section 2, clause 2.

About farking time. If the republicans want to be relevant in the next election, they're going to have to start now. Inaction hasn't stopped Obama from following Nixon, Regan, et. al. into a de-regulated surveillance state.

The turtle, able to shut out the rest of the world and survive the attempted penetration of logic, is a fine symbol for the new Republican party, just as the new Democratic symbol ought to be a flatworm. Spineless and easy to run over.

/Still voting next election.//Things don't get better if you do nothing.

sabreWulf07:JesseL: It's amazing how people realize this whole mess is a result of the President trying to bypass the Senate by making his appointments when they've all gone home for the night and claiming it as a recess appointment due to the senate not being in session simply due to not being physically present in the building.

The President has already made his appointments. The Senate has a constitutional duty to "advice and consent". If the Senate wants to withhold their consent for a nominee then they need to do that. Go ahead and hold a vote. Failure to grant or deny the President consent for his nominees is an unconstitutional bypassing of the President's duty to make appointments. The Senate has a constitutionally-mandated duty "advice and consent".

Note that "sit around with thumbs planted up asses" is not one of the options afforded the Senate by Article II, section 2, clause 2.

And pretending that the Senate is no longer in session when they go home at night so you can do whatever you want is no better.

JesseL:DamnYankees: JesseL: It's amazing how people realize this whole mess is a result of the President trying to bypass the Senate by making his appointments when they've all gone home for the night and claiming it as a recess appointment due to the senate not being in session simply due to not being physically present in the building.

Does anyone think that's a precedent that should be allowed to stand? All the courts that have heard it so far haven't.

This whole thing came to a head because the POTUS and Senate majority leadership didn't want to stand for their inevitable and deserved biatchslap from the Supreme Court.

It's hilarious that you think the recess appointments are the cause of the obstruction. Causality - it only works one way, friend.

If the recess appointments get approved it makes the Supreme Court case moot. There should be some consequences for that kind of unconstitutional BS, which is the reason for the recent fillibuster.

Would you like me to post why you're trolling or do you already have an idea?

For those who don't know, the recess why this is is that once Obama took office, the Senate GOP invented a basically new tactic of never going into recess. Even though no one is there, they just don't declare a recess.

DamnYankees:For those who don't know, the recess why this is is that once Obama took office, the Senate GOP invented a basically new tactic of never going into recess. Even though no one is there, they just don't declare a recess.

Yes, and the notion that this procedural chicanery is on the up and up is simply ludicrous.

DamnYankees:For those who don't know, the recess why this is is that once Obama took office, the Senate GOP invented a basically new tactic of never going into recess. Even though no one is there, they just don't declare a recess.

That's...incorrect.

As I recall, Bush recess-appointed a host of people, so during the next scheduled recess, the Senate, so as to not enter an official recess, gaveled pro-forma sessions of ~5mins every day to prevent more appointments. Do you remember the talk of the nuclear option in 2005? That was the GOP ready to kill the filibuster - pretty much this exact scenario, only the parties were reversed.

// this time, Obama tried to argue that the pro-forma sessions weren't "Senate business", as nothing got done// the Court figures that the Senate does so little even when they ARE in session, the only way to tell is to figure whether someone banged a page gavel to open the proceedings

Dr Dreidel:As I recall, Bush recess-appointed a host of people, so during the next scheduled recess, the Senate, so as to not enter an official recess, gaveled pro-forma sessions of ~5mins every day to prevent more appointments. Do you remember the talk of the nuclear option in 2005? That was the GOP ready to kill the filibuster - pretty much this exact scenario, only the parties were reversed.

Unless I'm mistaken, that was about judicial appointments, not executive appointments, no?

The joke was that they ought not be considered *in* session, even when they *are* there. Because they, quite intentionally, haven't done shiat in years.I'm just here for the pot-shots.

The actual dick-waving back and forth about whether lawyer trick A (refusing to declare recess, even when they go home) is better/worse than lawyer trick B (re-defining 'recess' to mean 'everyone gone home' instead of 'declared recess') is generally disinteresting.

Dr Dreidel:Is there a Constitutional difference (in the "advice and consent" part)?

Constitutional? Not that I know. But just logically, there's a rather large difference between appointing (i) members of your own branch of government who's term expires when you leave office and (ii) members of a different branch of government who serve for life.

If it was up to me, I'd abolish the filibuster for all of it. But i'm just saying it's not the same thing.

DamnYankees:Constitutional? Not that I know. But just logically, there's a rather large difference between appointing (i) members of your own branch of government who's term expires when you leave office and (ii) members of a different branch of government who serve for life.

If the Constitution was about logic and not about law, we wouldn't have needed a Constitution. Legally, a nominee is a nominee is a nominee, yes?

That's my point. I certainly get your point as well, but legally, it don't mean a fart in a windstorm.